CF does have a point
nah he doesn't, hes mixing up "fighting a fair/honourfull fight" and "fighting an equal fight"
CF does have a point
Nonsense imo.It is a greater challenge to attack at scores closer to your own because of the fact that the enemy has a greater potential to inflict damage, and it comes down to route choice/setup/skill rather than just a simple "I'm bigger than you therefore I win".
CF's argument is that if you send on an attack and expect to win it, then that is not a fair fight, as you win and the enemy loses.
So according to CF's logical deduction, an RPG zeroing a robotics player at 70% of him is not fighting fair, since he obliterates the enemy knowing he can win. He in fact relies on the fact that the battle is indeed unfair, in his favour.
What CF's logic does not take into account is the grand scheme, that each player has the choice of what route they take and each has it's own pros and cons. So a player attacking at 30% can usually easily demolish any enemy, even if it's their usual enemy, due to having such an overwhelming army size. However, if that same player were to attack at 70%, the number of targets and the challenge does become greater, since the enemy in question has the "POTENTIAL" to be more difficult to kill.
The question of a "fair fight" comes down to this: people at a similar score have the same potential. Yes, one may develop RPGs and the other SAs, giving the latter an advantage. But another at the same score may develop Robos.
It is a greater challenge to attack at scores closer to your own because of the fact that the enemy has a greater potential to inflict damage, and it comes down to route choice/setup/skill rather than just a simple "I'm bigger than you therefore I win".
So I think the idea of a "fair fight" is justified. Personally, I'd prefer a sliding scale as opposed to a strict 70% fair, 69% unfair approach, as CF mentioned.
which is intentionally only focused on allied players. as hitting a solo sa at 5% score with 21% AR as a rpg is equal to hitting an SA at 70% score with rpg if they are solo.Consider 2 RPG players of equal size. One attacks a robo player 80% of his score. Another hits an SA player 40% of his score. The robo gets wiped outright without being able to fire a shot back. The SA player also gets wiped, but manages to do some damage back.
A possible counter-argument (that the attacking of a solo at 30% is indeed unfair) could be that the route setup for the attacker at 330% can be much more flexible and much more "safe" than the attacker at 100%. For example, a player at 100% of the enemy score sends 1m SAs to attack an RPG. He only has SAs, so this is a perfect, and efficient target for him. The player at 330% has 2m SAs, 1m Assassins and 1m Ninjas, and can flexibly choose to attack the tiny RPG without as much risk to himself. It is arguable that this is less fair.
A possible counter-argument (that the attacking of a solo at 30% is indeed unfair) could be that the route setup for the attacker at 330% can be much more flexible and much more "safe" than the attacker at 100%. For example, a player at 100% of the enemy score sends 1m SAs to attack an RPG. He only has SAs, so this is a perfect, and efficient target for him. The player at 330% has 2m SAs, 1m Assassins and 1m Ninjas, and can flexibly choose to attack the tiny RPG without as much risk to himself. It is arguable that this is less fair.
I see your point, although I'd be lying if I said I agree. If it were possible to sell units and rebuy others, changing your setup at will, then I'd agree with you...